DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAKESH S KATHOTIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

22)(e) of the Act. Thus the AO had rightly invoked the said provisions based on detailed fund trail 4 Rakesh Kothotia, Mumbai. analysis, substantial shareholding of the assessee in M/s. Subhkam and the colourable structuring adopted in avoiding tax on deemed dividend. 6. Whereas on the contrary Ld. AR relied up the detailed submissions filed by the assessee before

SHRI ANAND M GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleestate Of Shri Anand M. Gupta V. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road {Through Legal Heir Mumbai - 400020 Mrs. Madhu Anand Gupta} B-723, Sector – C Mahanagar, Lucknow – 226006 Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabae8078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Malav Sheth Shri Ashish Kumar Department Represented By :

section 2(22) (e) of the Act and treated the amount of accumulated profit as deemed dividend and disallowed the benefits

RAMESH PREMJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ramesh Premji Shah बिधम/ Dcit 3-6 Shreeji Apartments 45 Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Vs. Jp Road Andheri (W), Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps2715F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subhas Bains Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In As Much As Upholding The Reassessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The It Act Dated 09.12.2019 Which Was Requested To Be Held As Illegal & Bad In Law As No Reassessment Can Be Made For Making Addition U/S 2(22)(E) Of The It Act U/S 147 Especially When The Disallowance Was Made From All The Details & Facts Available On Record And, Therefore, The Main Condition For Reopening The Case Beyond Four Years Which Is Failure On The Part Of Appellant To Disclose Fully & Truly All Material Facts Was Not Established By The Ao. Hon’Ble Itat Is Requested To Reverse The Order

disallowance was made from all the details and facts available on record and, therefore, the main condition for reopening the case beyond four years which is failure on the part of Appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts was not established by the AO. Hon’ble ITAT is requested to reverse the order 2 A.Y. 2012-13 Ramesh

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

22 and 23 of the order, page 217 of the Case Law\nPaper Book No. 2):\n(a) ...there is not even a token mention of the draft orders\nhaving been perused by the Additional Commissioner. The letter\nsimply grants an approval.\n(b)...it is an admitted position that the assessment orders\nare totally silent about the Assessing Officer

ASIA INVESTMENTS PVT.. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

2) clearly delineates two distinct the statutory scheme. Rule 8D(2) clearly delineates two distinct the statutory scheme. Rule 8D(2) clearly delineates two distinct categories of expenditure: categories of expenditure: (i) direct expenditure direct expenditure, including direct interest expenditure, , including direct interest expenditure, incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income, which must be for the purpose of earning

DCIT-CC-4(2), , MUMBAI vs. BIRLA GROUP HOLDINGS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dy. Cit, Cc-4(2), Central Birla Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Range-4, 1St Floor Industry House, 159 Vs. Room No. 1921, 19Th Floor, Churchgate Reclamation, Air India Building Nariman Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacr 2250 C Appellant Respondent

section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2) which prescribes a methodology for disallowance to be made u/s. 14A." methodology for disallowance to be made u/s. 14A." methodology for disallowance to be made u/s. 14A." 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee a non Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee a non Briefly stated, facts

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI vs. QUANTUM ADVISORS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit-1(3)(1), M/S Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, 503, Regent Chambers, Nariman Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai-400021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacq 0281 C Appellant Respondent

e of business". So long that is not established beyond reasonable doubt, no disallowance can be not established beyond reasonable doubt, no disallowance can be not established beyond reasonable doubt, no disallowance can be made u/s 37 of the Act. made u/s 37 of the Act.” 7.2 Before us, the Ld. Counsel Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

JAI JALARAM CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 29(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for esult appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for esult appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jai Jalaram Co-Operative Credit The Ito Ward 29(1)(5), Society Ltd., Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Shop No. -2 Ground Floor, Shop Complex, No. -2 Ground Floor, Mulund Mumbai-400051. Siddhivinayak C.H.S. Near Punjab National Bank Zaver Road, Mulund West, Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aaaaj 2603 B Appellant Respondent

disallowed the deduction claimed for the interest earned from Cooperative banks u/s 80P. With regard to the interest or erative banks u/s 80P. With regard to the interest or erative banks u/s 80P. With regard to the interest or dividend income earned from a Co dividend income earned from a Co-operative bank/ Scheduled operative bank/ Scheduled Bank

ACIT-5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle 5(1)(1), M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., R. No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11, K K Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act . The Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law shall decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law shall decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law after allowing adequate opportunity of allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The being heard to the assessee

ACIT-CIRCLE-5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue by separate impugned orders against final assessment order dated 29/01/2016 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) in pursuance of directions given by the DRP dated 28/12/2015 for the A.Y.2011-12; order against 31/01/2018 passed

DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue by separate impugned orders against final assessment order dated 29/01/2016 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) in pursuance of directions given by the DRP dated 28/12/2015 for the A.Y.2011-12; order against 31/01/2018 passed

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 14.03.2013 3 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited for AY 2009-10, dated

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 14.03.2013 3 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited for AY 2009-10, dated

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 14.03.2013 3 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited for AY 2009-10, dated

AMAR VITHALDAS GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amar Vithaldas Gandhi, Dy. Cit Circle 35(1), 203, Panorama Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Jaisukhlal Mehta Road, Santacruz Vs. Mumbai. West, Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aefpg 2142 G Appellant Respondent

22)(e) of the Act. The ground N appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 8. Ground No. 2 pertains to the disallowance of Rs.16,87,357/ Ground No. 2 pertains to the disallowance of Rs.16,87,357/ Ground No. 2 pertains to the disallowance of Rs.16,87,357/- claimed by the assessee

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

22,48,484/- under Section 14A of the Act. On perusal of the financial statements for the relevant previous year, the Assessing Officer noticed that the Assessee had aggregate borrowed funds of INR 31,322/- Crores as on 31/03/2014 and had incurred interest expenses of INR 617.39 Crores during the relevant previous year. Vide questionnaire, dated 14/08/2017, the Assessee

DCITCC-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AVINASH CONSTRUCTIONS, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit-Cc-2(3) V. Avinash Constructions Room No. 803, 8Th Floor Abil House 2, Ganesh Khind Road Old Cgo Annexe Building Range, Hill Corner, Pune -411007 M. K. Road, Marine Lines Pune, Maharashtra Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaefa6358H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Ajay Chandra

disallowed as deemed dividend under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being an advance

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

2)(a)(i) income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) would not be available meaning thereby t would not be available meaning thereby that deduction u/s hat deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) is available only in respect of income which